At the time, Google said it only collected "fragments" of personal Web traffic as it passed by, because its Wi-Fi equipment automatically changes channels five times a second. However, with Wi-Fi networks operating at up to 54Mbps, it always seemed likely that those one-fifth of a second recordings would contain more than just "fragments" of personal data.

That has now been confirmed by CNIL, which since June 4 has been examining Wi-Fi traffic and other data provided by Google on two hard disks and over a secure data connection to its servers.

"It's still too early to say what will happen as a result of this investigation," CNIL said Thursday.

"However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record email access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email messages," CNIL said.

... according to the French National Commission on Computing and Liberty (CNIL)

Besides, Google has clearly stated the purpose was to use wifi networks to enhance their navigation product and as a user of Google navigation I can appreciate that it reacts faster than GPS alone just by knowing where those networks exist.

All of this privacy hysteria is silly because open wifi isn't private.

No amount of legislation can make it private, it's not.

Maybe these open wifi's need to broadcast the following to opt-out: <meta name="googlebot" content="noindex, noarchive">

The upside is when I go war driving nobody is suspicious because it doesn't say "Google" on the side of my car ;)

I say this because in the UK, you need to have the network owners permission to access it by law. It doesn't matter if the network is secure or not, the law doesn't specify. It doesn't matter how much data you send or receive.

Therefore, you will find they have probably done nothing wrong in some countries, but may well have broken the law in others.

With your methapor, not only isn't the door locked, but all the furniture was tossed out on the lawn with a sign "TAKE ME - I'M FREE"

Because most people are computer stupid. They don't realize it's important to password protect their router, hell, they wouldn't even know how. Just the fact they got the damn thing to work is good enough.

The local bar has just now offered WiFi, in which the name of the router was linksys. Heh, factory settings. I logged into the router admin console with my phone and changed the name of the router to the bar's name, if only to deter others from messing with it.

You're all advacating that if someone doesn't protect their router that we get to have a free for all on it. Is that really fair? When businesses aren't even protecting their router there's clearly a lack of knowledge about how to protect your WiFi and the importance of it.

Nobody would KNOWINGLY broadcast their passwords in plain text. Google has taken advantage of stupid people, and I think the courts will decide it was wrong.

That is the only positive thing on their part when it comes to this subject.

When some one takes something that they are not supposed without permission, in my book itís called THEFT. When the same someone goes Extra Mile developing intelligent software to help them out while they are at it, it's called preparation for the Act of Crime. That is how I undestand it, Basicaly.

So is calling people who don't know there are people like you who enjoy going for a drive to sniff out their systems stupid.

Actually, Google has forced stupid people to smarten up and they probably don't even know it.

The upside is when I go war driving nobody is suspicious because it doesn't say "Google" on the side of my car...

Thanks for sharing your level of integrity and what's probably the real reason behind wanting this action to be upheld as right and the victim who probably doesn't know blamed for Google's and your actions. As long as Google can you can too, right? Keep the Faith... They've probably got better attorneys than you can afford, so you might piggy-back a win out of the situation.

Have fun taking advantage of those stupid people you so look down on, even though many of them may simply be more trusting, or heaven forbid, uninformed... Hopefully for your sake and that of Google's there are not laws in place to protect those people from the condescending, intelligent few.

BTW: Mobile phone signals can still be cracked... It's tougher now and way more expensive, but it can still be done, that's why I was thinking 'unencrypted'.

In most western countries (including the US probably) this would be illegal - if a government agency tried it, heads would roll.

This being the case, you have to ask why Google did it - they must have known that it was most-likely illegal. However, given that most wifi connections are encrypted, you have to wonder again, why Google did it - no useful data could result.

Now, if Google had used special software that sent out warning messages telling people to encrypt their wifi connections, that would have been a useful service, but listening in to fragments of conversations is pointless.

If this is ruled illegal (as it should be) then a fine for every breach should follow - say Ä100. Maybe then, Google will think twice about making stupid mistakes of this sort. To me, this comes down to respect and consideration for other people - commodities that seems to be in short supply at Google.

Make no mistake: Sniffing and recording data from unsecured wifi is a criminal act. Even in the US.

You mean there are actually smart people who wrote the laws and already thought of things like this and the laws of the US actually protect the 'stupid' people who don't know any better, so other 'smart' people who don't have any respect for the 'stupid' people can't legally take advantage of the 'stupidity' of the masses? Go Figure...

I will cheerfully join those who bemoan Incredibill's lack of diplomatic finesse, but I agree with his basic point that there is no reasonable claim of privacy when one is scattering things that one "owns" around public space, unencrypted.

Unsecured wi-fi is a broadcast medium.

The Google vehicles were travelling on public ground as they passed through all those little broadcast areas.

Make no mistake: Sniffing and recording data from unsecured wifi is a criminal act. Even in the US.

Make no mistake: you'll never know it's happening until someone actually connects with the network.

@incredibill and other defender of criminal actions

Not defending it at all.

I'm just concerned about security and I'm sorry that I can't share by showing how easy it is without being labeled.

Wifi sniffers are freely available, it's undetectable to see the "crime" happen, and as long as technically inept legislators write well meaning but stupid laws instead of simply outlawing the flawed technology and giving the industry a few years to correct the problem, it will simply continue to be a source of abuse.

Guess education and correction isn't welcome so bring on legislation that does nothing.

I will cheerfully join those who bemoan Incredibill's lack of diplomatic finesse

@incredibill Thanks for clarifying that you do not defend the criminal act of sniffing.

And, I agree with you that wi-fi is an unsecure technology by definition.

However, the simple point remaining is: Just because the technology is flawed and the unwashed masses don't know better does not make it morally, ethically or legally acceptable that people/corporations sniff and record wi-fi data without consent of data owners for whatever reason (no, this is not a opt-out scenario).

For some reason law-makers around the world agree on this and there is no reason I can see that these laws don't apply for Google.

As a non-native English speaker I am still trying to fully understand the meaning of TRANSITIVE but I am afraid it comes down to symantic bla bla. I will be back once I have the feeling I understand that word.

I'm curious, Cwnet ... where would you draw the moral lines for the "unwashed masses" who so easily subject themselves to hazards they don't understand?

To use an example from earlier in the thread, outside of a serious emergency situation, no one I know would consider it acceptable for a stranger to walk into their house just because the door had been left unlocked. But if the owner had never bothered to install a lock or get a key made, how much is he allowed to whine if someone does walk in?

It may sound weird to you but if the owner of a house does not bother to install a lock or get a key made and someone walks into his home we have a perfect case of trespassing. Trespassing is a crime and will be punished (again, don't believe me, ask your lawyer).

Maybe an unfair question: Do you personally believe that YOU are entitled to walk into someone elses home if their is no lock to stop you? And, to take things a little bit further. Since you are there you might as well take the stereo, the tv, the pc and whatever else you want with you. Do YOU personally believe you are entitled to do so because there are no locks?

The German law that applies is called Telekommunikationsgesetz - it basically says that sniffing of communication (including wi-fi, secured or not) may be punished with jail time of up to 2 years or a monetary fine. If you search, you will find similar laws in most civilized countries.